| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
kellverona 
Senior Member
Joined: 01 January 1900
Location: Hervey Bay Australia
Points: 817
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Topic: DiFfEReNt DaTeS
Posted: 03 May 2006 at 11:48am |
Hey Ladies,
Im soooo confused. My EDD was 28th August and 6 week scan said I was due 7th September, then my 12 Scan said I was a week and a bit further and the last scan I had at 22weeks said I was due 23rd August. I was told by midwife to go by first scan date as that is most accurate. (7th September) But two scans have said end of 23-28th August. What would I really go by? Baby also weighs approx 630gms, which by the books I have read is normal at 24 weeks. SOoo cnfused. Any suggestions. Shall I stick to 22 weeks or 24 weeks?? 
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
AlyAyde
Senior Member
Joined: 02 September 2003
Location: Whangarei
Points: 3371
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 May 2006 at 11:54am |
|
Yep your midwife is right as babies grow at the same rate for the first few weeks so measurements are correct for dating. But in saying that its only a weeks difference and your due date can be 2 weeks either side.
|
|
Jayde 25/12/04
Alyssa 08/04/03
http://Alyayde.bebo.com
|
|
Roksana
Senior Member
Joined: 01 January 1900
Location: Manurewa, Auckland
Points: 6137
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 May 2006 at 12:02pm |
|
yap the earlier scan is ususally correct....but like Maria said 2 weeks either way. My scan was exact....well my early scan said 31 Oct 05 and later it moved up and down...Zaara was born 31 Oct 05.
|
|
|
|
MILF
Senior Member
Joined: 01 January 1900
Location: Antarctica/Invercargill ;)
Points: 1988
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 May 2006 at 12:04pm |
|
poor you, it must be really fustrating not having a proper date to go by - and aim for. i would go with september, simply because if baby is early you get a surprise, but if you aim for august and baby is late..... ugh
|
Lyla - mum to
Xanthe -  my big 4 year old 
and
Jordis - 1 year old 
|
|
mrs frantic
Senior Member
Joined: 01 January 1900
Location: New Zealand
Points: 990
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 May 2006 at 12:19pm |
yup me too - go for the late date but maybe you will get an early surprise 
|
Mrs Frantic
Baby Maddisyn born 28 Sept 2006
|
|
mum2emj
Senior Member
Joined: 01 January 1900
Location: Nelson
Points: 2829
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 May 2006 at 1:18pm |
|
i agree with everyone, the first scan date is the most accurate as the baby grows at a different rate.
i never had a real early scan with my first baby, but at the 20 week scan it had my dates at the 13th ocotber (edd lmp 10th octber) and then when i went in for a late scan to check bubs growth due to blood pressure etc...) it had my dates as 24th october. my daughter was born a few days later (at 39 weeks) weighing 6lb 2oz so was a reasonably small full term baby anyway!
Edited by mum2emj
|
|
lizzle
Senior Member
Joined: 01 January 1900
Location: New Zealand
Points: 8346
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 May 2006 at 2:00pm |
|
I had the same thing. First scan said taine was due on the 11th, second one said 28th and he was born on the 17th. you'll probably give birth s9moetime in between.
|
|
DiFfEReNt DaTeS
